My dice influence data ~1000 rollls
Thread Rating:
I use the “V Two” set, with the two’s on top diagonally, and the one and three facing you, using the standard “par toss”. I built my own craps table at home with authentic felt + vinyl underpayment and alligator. The table is HARD, and I don’t have a big enough place to house a full size craps table so I am standing 2-3 feet closer than you would in a casino.
I lay the 4, play don’t pass with odds. Maybe I should start placing the 8.
65 rolls since the last boxcars & 41 rolls since the last yo!
Quote: ChumpChangeI happened to have a player on WinCraps at 1/3rd of 100K rolls, so here's the results that player has been exposed to (not setting dice).
65 rolls since the last boxcars & 41 rolls since the last yo!
link to original post
Inb4fiveteenyo’sinarow
Question; what “set” do you use? It looks like your data is pretty spot on toward the actual probabilities. Do you recall at what number of rolls it took for the results to start to look this way?
I play bubble craps so I only get 15 seconds to push a button while the dice are being agitated.
The few times I've been at a table I'll set 7's for come-out rolls and set for the point whatever that may be if I'm playing right-side on the PL.
If I'm playing dark-side I'll try to put a 4 then a 5 up then try to roll a 7, especially when I'm alone at the table.
I usually have to make up for 4-6 bets that were lost by others for me while I was waiting for the dice.
you guys may already know this but just in case you don't the Wizard has weighed in on this - see link
in an experiment Stanford Wong and somebody named Little Joe were able to avoid rolling a 7 more times than randomness would indicate in 500 rolls
they rolled only 74 sevens in 500 rolls whereas probabilities indicate a seven should be rolled on average 83.33 times if randomness is present
Little Joe was able to roll just just 29 sevens in 222 rolls - just 13.06%
the Wizard indicates the probability of rolling 74 or fewer sevens in 500 rolls if the results are random - which is what they did - is just 14.41%
the Wizard would have to verify this - I can't speak for him - but in concluding his article with this he seems to me to be indicating that he believes that dice influencing is a possible thing
.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/3/
.
Quote: VegasEducationBut the question should be, 'Does 74 sevens in 500 rolls fall within the standard deviation of what's normal?' What are the odds of that happening, even if truly random? If things are truly random, you'd get 74 or fewer sevens 14.41% of the time.
link to original post
okay - then you have to presume -
if they had rolled just 60 sevens in 500 rolls and that should happen if the rolls are random just 0.5% of the time (I'm estimating - that is not meant to be accurate) - does that prove anything____?
because it could have happened even if the rolling was random
so, at what point should it be accepted that influencing is possible__________?
clearly to really prove it is possible beyond any doubt would require thousands of rolls by persons claiming to have this talent
but as far as I know there are no such records
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
you guys may already know this but just in case you don't the Wizard has weighed in on this - see link
in an experiment Stanford Wong and somebody named Little Joe were able to avoid rolling a 7 more times than randomness would indicate in 500 rolls
they rolled only 74 sevens in 500 rolls whereas probabilities indicate a seven should be rolled on average 83.33 times if randomness is present
Little Joe was able to roll just just 29 sevens in 222 rolls - just 13.06%
the Wizard indicates the probability of rolling 74 or fewer sevens in 500 rolls if the results are random - which is what they did - is just 14.41%
the Wizard would have to verify this - I can't speak for him - but in concluding his article with this he seems to me to be indicating that he believes that dice influencing is a possible thing
.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/3/
.
link to original post
KC, a former high stakes pro card counter who did the card counting gambling documentary “Inside the edge” and was on GWAE a couple times, tried dice influencing in Vegas and believed at the time that he had an edge. One of his GWAE appearances discusses it, but I’m not going to go back to listen to it to figure out which one and post.
Anyways, many places in LV backed him off for it, perhaps just because he was a known pro so figured he must have an edge. The Wynn let him play, he was 6 figures + I can’t recall the amount, but they let him play and he lost it all back. At the time of the episode he said he did not believe he ever had an edge doing it.
The numbers become too small for excel to deal with and they round off to zero.
(and yes I know it is illegal to use an area or line chart for discrete data, but an excel bar chart would be ugly if it was not huge.)
Quote: VegasEducationBut the question should be, 'Does 74 sevens in 500 rolls fall within the standard deviation of what's normal?' What are the odds of that happening, even if truly random? If things are truly random, you'd get 74 or fewer sevens 14.41% of the time.
link to original post
The issue would be repeating the feat. Unlikely things happen. People win the lottery. Repeating that win is somewhat harder.
I don't think it can be done on a full size table. Physical experiments show that the physics of bouncing dice is too chaotic for the rotational axis to survive the encounter with the felt, much less the back wall.
Maybe with a half table and a lax casino staff, you could gain an edge.
It is so easy to make money gambling. Why try to do it using an impossible approach like dice control?
Quote: MentalIf someone had video evidence of an encounter with Big Foot, we would have seen it. Dice control should be even easier to document on video. If as person can do it, then they can do it over and over again in front of a camera.
I don't think it can be done on a full size table. Physical experiments show that the physics of bouncing dice is too chaotic for the rotational axis to survive the encounter with the felt, much less the back wall.
Maybe with a half table and a lax casino staff, you could gain an edge.
It is so easy to make money gambling. Why try to do it using an impossible approach like dice control?
link to original post
I make youtube videos about this type of stuff. I can testify that itd be near impossible to get people to watch a video about how someone can lower their number of 7s from 16.66% of the time to 10% of the time. I could make the best produced video about this and have it literally proves the reincarnation of christ and nobody would watch it because there is too much math and thinking involved
Quote: MentalIt is so easy to make money gambling.
I believe this is an inaccurate and misleading statement
I won't dispute that it might be easy for you - you may be an exceptional individual
but for the vast majority - even including APs - I don't believe they would say that
the exception might be sports betting because of all of the giveaways due to extreme competition among the online books
but that will only fly for relatively small dollars
.
So you make videos that nobody watches. That sounds like a really great business model. I am sorry that nobody is watching your videos of Sasquatch and a reincarnated Christ, either.Quote: VegasEducationQuote: MentalIf someone had video evidence of an encounter with Big Foot, we would have seen it. Dice control should be even easier to document on video. If as person can do it, then they can do it over and over again in front of a camera.
I don't think it can be done on a full size table. Physical experiments show that the physics of bouncing dice is too chaotic for the rotational axis to survive the encounter with the felt, much less the back wall.
Maybe with a half table and a lax casino staff, you could gain an edge.
It is so easy to make money gambling. Why try to do it using an impossible approach like dice control?
link to original post
I make youtube videos about this type of stuff. I can testify that itd be near impossible to get people to watch a video about how someone can lower their number of 7s from 16.66% of the time to 10% of the time. I could make the best produced video about this and have it literally proves the reincarnation of christ and nobody would watch it because there is too much math and thinking involved
link to original post
Bonus points for your insinuation that everyone here at WOV hates math and thinking.
Quote: MentalSo you make videos that nobody watches. That sounds like a really great business model. I am sorry that nobody is watching your videos of Sasquatch and a reincarnated Christ, either.Quote: VegasEducationQuote: MentalIf someone had video evidence of an encounter with Big Foot, we would have seen it. Dice control should be even easier to document on video. If as person can do it, then they can do it over and over again in front of a camera.
I don't think it can be done on a full size table. Physical experiments show that the physics of bouncing dice is too chaotic for the rotational axis to survive the encounter with the felt, much less the back wall.
Maybe with a half table and a lax casino staff, you could gain an edge.
It is so easy to make money gambling. Why try to do it using an impossible approach like dice control?
link to original post
I make youtube videos about this type of stuff. I can testify that itd be near impossible to get people to watch a video about how someone can lower their number of 7s from 16.66% of the time to 10% of the time. I could make the best produced video about this and have it literally proves the reincarnation of christ and nobody would watch it because there is too much math and thinking involved
link to original post
Bonus points for your insinuation that everyone here at WOV hates math and thinking.
link to original post
You mad bro? do you need a hug or something? 🤣
in America, everything, even trivial things, are studied to death
so, in thinking about it - I would have to believe that if dice influencing were possible it would have been proven somehow and somewhere with thousands of rolls
academics love this kind of thing
and guess what - I found an academic study - see link
these PhDs built a machine they called "Lucky Lil" and calibrated it to throw the dice in a way that they believed might produce non random results
they tested both short rolls that did not hit the back wall and legal rolls that did hit the back wall
but alas - "Lucky Lil" failed to produce any results that were significantly different than random results
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=grrj
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: MentalIt is so easy to make money gambling.
I believe this is an inaccurate and misleading statement
I won't dispute that it might be easy for you - you may be an exceptional individual
but for the vast majority - even including APs - I don't believe they would say that
the exception might be sports betting because of all of the giveaways due to extreme competition among the online books
but that will only fly for relatively small dollars
.
link to original post
Fair enough. I agree my statement could be misleading.
Plumbers make good money. I would not say it is an easy trade. Plumbers need to acquire training and invest in tools. They need to go to locations where plumbing needs to be done and where customers can afford to pay for the work. If you are a plumber living in a third-world village where nobody has plumbing, then it is not easy to make money as a plumber.
I agree that sportsbook have tight caps on promo bets. Online slots provide better promotions for low rollers. Promotions targeted to slot players can have exceptionally high caps. I recently earned over $10K in promo dollars from one online casino in one day (this was not leaderboard prize). Back when I started playing online, promotional budgets were even larger and less discriminating. The first online leaderboard that I participated in had a half million dollar prize for first place.
Sorry if this is hijacking the OPs thread.
unpredictable sequence of other results. The 8 is not occurring more frequently
than random because you are controlling the dice. If you had an ability to
control the axial results of your tosses, the "V Two" set would not favor the
6 or 8 which begs the question: Why did the 8's came in a little better than
expected with your Parr toss?
In answer to your question: betting more on the 8 will not compensate for
losses due to the 8 failing to show up before the 7.
Craps Lab: Dice Setter
Total Rolls: 1097
Won 148 hands
Lost 163 hands
Avg. Rolls/Hand = 9.04 (expected 8.53 rolls/hand)
Percent 7 Rolled: 15.54% (expected 16.66%)
Most Rolls in a Hand: 45
Avg. Passes/Hand: 1.22
Avg. Misses/Hand:1.35
Hawaii Craps Shooters: Dice Setters
Total Rolls: 2656
Won 376 hands
Lost 365 hands
Avg. Rolls/Hand = 8.91
Percent 7 Rolled: 16.08%
Most Rolls in a Hand: 38
Avg. Passes/Hand: 1.26
Avg. Misses/Hand:1.22
Craps Hawaii: Dice Setters
Total Rolls: 278
Won 35 hands
Lost 30 hands
Avg. Rolls/Hand = 9.15
Percent 7 Rolled: 15.55%
Most Rolls in a Hand: 29
Avg. Passes/Hand: 1.35
Avg. Misses/Hand:1.15
All Casino Action: Not a Dice Setter
Total Rolls: 3021
Won 426 hands
Lost 448 hands
Avg. Rolls/Hand = 8.39
Percent 7 Rolled: 16.35%
Most Rolls in a Hand: 65
Avg. Passes/Hand: 1.18
Avg. Misses/Hand:1.24
